9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (9) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in [1977] 39 STC 443 (Natarajan and Sons v. State of Tamil Nadu) and failed to correctly apply the ratio of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India reported in [1979] 43 STC 13; AIR 1978 SC 1496 (Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan) in a situation where the nature of the transaction between the parties negatived the intention to effect sale of the container together with the contents and this has resulted in denying to the appellant the deduction it was entitled to under Rule 6(4)(ff) of the Rules? 2.. Whether, on the facts of the case, the exercise of power under section 25-A of the Act was illegal and impermissible when there was no apparent mistake on the face of the record?" 2.. The facts leading to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r under rule 6(cc)(i) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, which is in pari materia with Rule 6(4)(ff) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules. 3.. We see from the order of the Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed the appeals before it, that the same proposition was laid down by the Madras High Court earlier in the case of Madras Cements Limited v. State of Madras [1973] 31 STC 221. It would be useful to extract the passage relied upon by the Tribunal in the course of its judgment and it is as follows: "........ Where a manufactured product has to be necessarily bottled, packed or bagged after the sale and the dealer undertakes to transport the goods and deliver the same to the buyer or where the expenditure for packing is incurred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... packing material was clearly an error of law which could be rectified under section 25-A of the Act. If that power is exercised and the assessment rectified (we may mention here, due to some unfortunate error, the rectified assessment order of the original assessing authority has not been produced and in its place the original assessment order, which was rectified, has been produced), the second question really does not arise for our consideration at all. 5.. In regard to the first question, Mr. A.N. Jayaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, placed strong reliance upon certain observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [1979] 43 STC 13 (SC); AIR 1978 SC 1496. We do not think ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , pursuant to the Cement Control Order, the assesseecompany was supplying the containers (the cement bags) along with the cement and the sale of cement resulted in the incidental sale of the bags as well impliedly. Therefore, once the cost of bags had been recovered from the purchaser as part of the sale price, then there was no way by which it could be excluded from the sales turnover of the assessee-company in regard to sale of cement. 7.. Therefore, we do not find any error in the order of the appellate authorities as well as the original assessing authority which rectified the order under section 25-A. 8.. We, therefore, dismiss these revision petitions. 9.. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
